J-man
|
#1 next yearwho do you think will be #1 next year
|
PSALT
|
Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1
|
Babzzzzz
|
Men: Federer
Women: Clijsters, I hope her game or mentality won´t be affected due to the fact she is wihtout a coach. It works for Federer, and I hope it will work for Kim as well.
|
Agassi2000
|
| PSALT wrote: | | Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1 |
I agree with you but think that Hewitt will do better than Roddick. Both at Wimbledon and the US Open he lost to Federer in the semi finals. Roddick didn't even have to play Fed until the final at Wimbledon, and at the US Open he lost in the 1st round, nothing that Hewitt did. I think Hewitt will be 3 and Roddick 4 or 5.
|
PSALT
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | PSALT wrote: | | Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1 |
I agree with you but think that Hewitt will do better than Roddick. Both at Wimbledon and the US Open he lost to Federer in the semi finals. Roddick didn't even have to play Fed until the final at Wimbledon, and at the US Open he lost in the 1st round, nothing that Hewitt did. I think Hewitt will be 3 and Roddick 4 or 5. |
I think you misunderstood my post. By talking about Roddick first I wasn't saying he would be ranked higher than Hewitt. THose two will have to fight it our for #3 but Roddick will take some confidence into his matches with Hewitt becuase of their match in Cincinatti.
|
Not_Even_Amateur
|
Men: Federer. I don't think there is ANY doubt about that one.
Women: Significantly harder to judge. Cjlisters, only because of the amount of tournaments she plays. I think the best player of 06' is actually going to be Venus.
|
J-man
|
| PSALT wrote: | | Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1 |
nadal l is catching up with federer on hardcourts (for example miami this year). but the only place where nadal feels at home is on clay and that's the only place that nadal has a winning record vs federer. but then again federer is also catching up to nadal on clay, which he could possibly do.
|
Agassi2000
|
| J-man wrote: | | PSALT wrote: | | Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1 |
nadal l is catching up with federer on hardcourts (for example miami this year). but the only place where nadal feels at home is on clay and that's the only place that nadal has a winning record vs federer. but then again federer is also catching up to nadal on clay, which he could possibly do. |
I think this is how it is. Federer's best surface is grass, and that is nadal's worst. Federer would destroy nadal on grass. Clay is nadal's best surface, and federer's worst. Nadal would beat federeron clay, but it would be much closer. On hard, they are both good at, and federer would beat nadal. So nadal has to really practice on all surfaces to keep up with federer, while fed only really has to work on clay to catch up to nadal. Tough for the spaniard!
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | J-man wrote: | | PSALT wrote: | | Federer. Right now the only place Nadal can beat Fed is on clay, that's not enough. Nadal will have to make a huge improvement on grass and will have to improve on hard courts to challenge Federer next year for #1. Roddick will need to get more variety in his game to be #1 or even be #2 for that matter. Hewitt just seems like he is on the decline this year. Yes, he made the Aussie Open final, Wimbledon Semi's, and US Open semi's but lost for the first time in ages to Roddick, and still isn't able to beat Federer. His year was plagued by injury but I just can't see him reach #1 or #2 for awhile or possibly never reaching that high ever again. Safin............ he might do well in some tournements but is to unpredictable to reach #1 |
nadal l is catching up with federer on hardcourts (for example miami this year). but the only place where nadal feels at home is on clay and that's the only place that nadal has a winning record vs federer. but then again federer is also catching up to nadal on clay, which he could possibly do. |
nadal could come up with a win this year on hardcourts
I think this is how it is. Federer's best surface is grass, and that is nadal's worst. Federer would destroy nadal on grass. Clay is nadal's best surface, and federer's worst. Nadal would beat federeron clay, but it would be much closer. On hard, they are both good at, and federer would beat nadal. So nadal has to really practice on all surfaces to keep up with federer, while fed only really has to work on clay to catch up to nadal. Tough for the spaniard! |
nadal could pull off a win this year on hardcourts against federer 
|
beachjm
|
I like Federer and Clijsters to be #1 in '06. Federer should still have a comfortable margin. Clijsters probably will attain the top spot because she's so consistent and now starting to win some big events. Davenport, Sharapova, and Venus could challenge but health is key for each one. They also have to win the big matches to garner the big pts.
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | | I like Federer and Clijsters to be #1 in '06. Federer should still have a comfortable margin. Clijsters probably will attain the top spot because she's so consistent and now starting to win some big events. Davenport, Sharapova, and Venus could challenge but health is key for each one. They also have to win the big matches to garner the big pts. |
yeah i would agree. clijters i think will end next year at #1. but if veus stays healthy and motivated to keep playing and winning *smirk* move over clijters 
|
beachjm
|
Playing devil's advocate I bit, I love Clijsters game but she still has a way to go to convince all of us that she's the real deal. One major doesn't overturn the fact that she's been the bridesmaid a ton at the big events. Don't know how much to read into her lame performance in L.A. season finale. Maybe she was tired but when you look at someone like Federer, who still sucks it up and almost wins his last tourney, and then Clijsters lays an egg, the women's game shouldn't be scared of matching up with her next yr. Also, Clijsters dumping her coach was probably premature. I mean she's very good but she's no Federer. Very few players can do without a coach in some regards or have some of the pressure taken off by having someone to confide in during the inevitable tough spots of the season.
There are probably 4-5 women who could be #1 next yr. But injuries, consistentcy, and desire will determine who actually claims the top spot.
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | Playing devil's advocate I bit, I love Clijsters game but she still has a way to go to convince all of us that she's the real deal. One major doesn't overturn the fact that she's been the bridesmaid a ton at the big events. Don't know how much to read into her lame performance in L.A. season finale. Maybe she was tired but when you look at someone like Federer, who still sucks it up and almost wins his last tourney, and then Clijsters lays an egg, the women's game shouldn't be scared of matching up with her next yr. Also, Clijsters dumping her coach was probably premature. I mean she's very good but she's no Federer. Very few players can do without a coach in some regards or have some of the pressure taken off by having someone to confide in during the inevitable tough spots of the season.
There are probably 4-5 women who could be #1 next yr. But injuries, consistentcy, and desire will determine who actually claims the top spot. |
yeah i agree. i don't know why clijters had dumped her coach. i mean it's kind of stupid  i mean how will she confide without a coach. i think it will hurt her next year, not having a coach. your also right about that she is not as good as federer and can not risk going without a coach. only federer can really go without a coach (as he did in 2004)
|
Agassi2000
|
| Not_Even_Amateur wrote: | Men: Federer. I don't think there is ANY doubt about that one.
Women: Significantly harder to judge. Cjlisters, only because of the amount of tournaments she plays. I think the best player of 06' is actually going to be Venus. |
I have to say I agree with you. Now, consistancy is more important than big wins. Hingis was 1 for years even efter she stopped winning majors, just because she played alot. She would get good results, gaining lots of points all the time. This is why davenport is still 1. Venus williams is going to be the best player in 2006 I believe, even though she will not end at 1. Injuries will determine how well she does.
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | Not_Even_Amateur wrote: | Men: Federer. I don't think there is ANY doubt about that one.
Women: Significantly harder to judge. Cjlisters, only because of the amount of tournaments she plays. I think the best player of 06' is actually going to be Venus. |
I have to say I agree with you. Now, consistancy is more important than big wins. Hingis was 1 for years even efter she stopped winning majors, just because she played alot. She would get good results, gaining lots of points all the time. This is why davenport is still 1. Venus williams is going to be the best player in 2006 I believe, even though she will not end at 1. Injuries will determine how well she does. |
this could happen because clijters does not have a coach
|
Agassi2000
|
Hey j-man you're a "quarter finalist" now  .
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | Hey j-man you're a "quarter finalist" now . |
yeah i know. i'm racking up points  
|
beachjm
|
I think whoever wins the AO for the women might be the dominant player for the year. Obviously didn't happen this year, but if say Clijsters, Davenport, Venus, even a surprise wins then their confidence should be sky high and could set up a great year.
On the men's side, if someone knocks off Federer then they could be in the process of having a monster year. Best challengers would be Nadal, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and the ultimate wild card-Safin.
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | I think whoever wins the AO for the women might be the nt player for the year. Obviously didn't happen this year, but if say Clijsters, Davenport, Venus, even a surprise wins then their confidence should be sky high and could set up a great year.
On the men's side, if someone knocks off Federer then they could be in the process of having a monster year. Best challengers would be Nadal, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and the ultimate wild card-Safin. |
i agree about the women, espically. on the mens side, i also agree. espically if any of those player that you named beats federer at AO that will be a morale booster next time they face him on hardcouts.
but in genral anyone who beats federer, could have a great year ahead of them
|
Agassi2000
|
| J-man wrote: | | beachjm wrote: | I think whoever wins the AO for the women might be the nt player for the year. Obviously didn't happen this year, but if say Clijsters, Davenport, Venus, even a surprise wins then their confidence should be sky high and could set up a great year.
On the men's side, if someone knocks off Federer then they could be in the process of having a monster year. Best challengers would be Nadal, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and the ultimate wild card-Safin. |
i agree about the women, espically. on the mens side, i also agree. espically if any of those player that you named beats federer at AO that will be a morale booster next time they face him on hardcouts.
but in genral anyone who beats federer, could have a great year ahead of them |
Not just hard courts, but tennis in general! In fact, I think life in general. Federer will win wimbledon though, that is a gimme.
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | J-man wrote: | | beachjm wrote: | I think whoever wins the AO for the women might be the nt player for the year. Obviously didn't happen this year, but if say Clijsters, Davenport, Venus, even a surprise wins then their confidence should be sky high and could set up a great year.
On the men's side, if someone knocks off Federer then they could be in the process of having a monster year. Best challengers would be Nadal, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and the ultimate wild card-Safin. |
i agree about the women, espically. on the mens side, i also agree. espically if any of those player that you named beats federer at AO that will be a morale booster next time they face him on hardcouts.
but in genral anyone who beats federer, could have a great year ahead of them |
Not just hard courts, but tennis in general! In fact, I think life in general. Federer will win wimbledon though, that is a gimme. |
wimbledon is a gimme for federer unless he gets injured and faces the like of roddick ( ) or keifer
|
beachjm
|
One thing I've often wondered is say Federer wins the French. Does he get too tired/lose a little focus to win Wimbledon? He could be a bit vulnerable. But then again this year he made it to the semis and looked fresh at Wimbledon. He knows how not to overschedule in the spring. It sure would be exciting to see him or anyone win the French-Wimbledon double. It's hard to believe it hasn't happened since '80 Borg. Borg did it three straight years '78-80, which to me is one of the all-time great feats in the men's game. That will be a hard record to match. I think Federer can do it once but I'm not so sure about three times, let alone in a row.
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | | One thing I've often wondered is say Federer wins the French. Does he get too tired/lose a little focus to win Wimbledon? He could be a bit vulnerable. But then again this year he made it to the semis and looked fresh at Wimbledon. He knows how not to overschedule in the spring. It sure would be exciting to see him or anyone win the French-Wimbledon double. It's hard to believe it hasn't happened since '80 Borg. Borg did it three straight years '78-80, which to me is one of the all-time great feats in the men's game. That will be a hard record to match. I think Federer can do it once but I'm not so sure about three times, let alone in a row. |
well it's hard for anyone to do it with the short transition time. but if federer won the french i think he wouldn't get tired/lose foucs because wimbledon is like his tournment.
|
beachjm
|
That's true. Plus, there aren't really that many great men on the grass. Sort of like there isn't a lot of great women on the clay. I thought Ancic could have challenged Federer this year but he went down in flames. We all know Roddick can't beat Federer on grass. There really aren't that many contenders to his throne on grass right now. Maybe it will change down the road but I think Federer can definitely match Borg's 5 consecutive titles (as long as he stays healthy).
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | | That's true. Plus, there aren't really that many great men on the grass. Sort of like there isn't a lot of great women on the clay. I thought Ancic could have challenged Federer this year but he went down in flames. We all know Roddick can't beat Federer on grass. There really aren't that many contenders to his throne on grass right now. Maybe it will change down the road but I think Federer can definitely match Borg's 5 consecutive titles (as long as he stays healthy). |
MAYBE a player that can challenge federer at wimbleon is Feliciano Lopez. he beat marat safin and i think anicic at the '05 wimbledon.
but you have a point and saying arent as many great grass courters. there are just fewer and fewer grass court tournments, so it makes it harder for players to play and practice. plus matience is expensive
|
leftys_rock
|
well i think fed will be #1 for at least 3 more years before the field can catch up to him....for women the #1 ranking is wide open cuz injurys are a really big factor in this....the scheduling problem is hitting the women a lot harder than the men.....
|
J-man
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | well i think fed will be #1 for at least 3 more years before the field can catch up to him....for women the #1 ranking is wide open cuz injurys are a really big factor in this....the scheduling problem is hitting the women a lot harder than the men..... |
very true. #1 changes way more often then #1 for the men
|
leftys_rock
|
like fed has 6000+ points in his ranking and nadal is very far behind at #2 with 4000 something points....and roddick is also considerably far behind nadal with 3000 something points....so it is easy to say who is dominant in mens tennis as opposed to womens because for the past 7 slams, 7 different women have won....
|
Agassi2000
|
| J-man wrote: | | leftys_rock wrote: | | well i think fed will be #1 for at least 3 more years before the field can catch up to him....for women the #1 ranking is wide open cuz injurys are a really big factor in this....the scheduling problem is hitting the women a lot harder than the men..... |
very true. #1 changes way more often then #1 for the men |
Huh?
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | J-man wrote: | | leftys_rock wrote: | | well i think fed will be #1 for at least 3 more years before the field can catch up to him....for women the #1 ranking is wide open cuz injurys are a really big factor in this....the scheduling problem is hitting the women a lot harder than the men..... |
very true. #1 changes way more often then #1 for the men |
Huh? |
 i meant #1 changes more often for the WOMEN than the men. opps my bad
|
Agassi2000
|
| J-man wrote: | | Agassi2000 wrote: | | J-man wrote: | | leftys_rock wrote: | | well i think fed will be #1 for at least 3 more years before the field can catch up to him....for women the #1 ranking is wide open cuz injurys are a really big factor in this....the scheduling problem is hitting the women a lot harder than the men..... |
very true. #1 changes way more often then #1 for the men |
Huh? |
i meant #1 changes more often for the WOMEN than the men. opps my bad |
Lol yeah, that makes more sense .
|
leftys_rock
|
how do u guys think the rest of the top 10 is gonna change?? cuz its obviously gonna change somewhat over the year....
|
J-man
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | how do u guys think the rest of the top 10 is gonna change?? cuz its obviously gonna change somewhat over the year.... |
for the men or women?
|
leftys_rock
|
well u can say both but i was first directing it towards the men.....but the womens is probably going to change a lot.....
|
J-man
|
well, i think 10-5 is really up for grabs. i think roddick will get bumped down a few ranking though.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah thats true...i was surprised that his ranking remained so steady for the past year considering that it was a bad year for him...
|
J-man
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | yeah thats true...i was surprised that his ranking remained so steady for the past year considering that it was a bad year for him... |
me too.
|
leftys_rock
|
cuz after his 1st rd loss at the USO, he still remained #3 while safin dropped out of the top 10 cuz he had to pull out....
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | cuz after his 1st rd loss at the USO, he still remained #3 while safin dropped out of the top 10 cuz he had to pull out.... |
I the way the point system works. Hewitt lost more points at the us open, losing in the semis, than roddick losing in the 1st. This is only because hewitt made the finals last year and roddick lost in the quarters. Stupid in my mind 
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah i noe thats so stupid.....cuz roddick should have lost A LOT of points because of past performances.....and hewitt just lost in the semis cuz of his draw....thats such a stupid way to put the point system....
|
J-man
|
yes, not the best point system i would agree
|
leftys_rock
|
how does the womens point system work then??
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | how does the womens point system work then?? |
I think the same now that they got rid of the qualifying points  . If you beat davenport, you should get more points than beating lisa raymond.
|
leftys_rock
|
like that happens in the early rounds then right?? cuz if like clijsters beats davenport, then it probably isnt worth as much as if peng shuai beats davenport.....
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | like that happens in the early rounds then right?? cuz if like clijsters beats davenport, then it probably isnt worth as much as if peng shuai beats davenport..... |
I think its the same, and it should be the same. It would affect peng shuai more because she has less points, but she shouldn't get any more than clijsters.
|
leftys_rock
|
so does that mean that lindsay davenport wont really get any extra points because shes #1??
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | so does that mean that lindsay davenport wont really get any extra points because shes #1?? |
I don't know. I think she still does because she its not about how much higher the other player is, just what their rank is.
|
leftys_rock
|
so like davenport will get the same number points as mauresmo if davenport beats kim clijsters and if mauresmo beats sharapova??
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | so like davenport will get the same number points as mauresmo if davenport beats kim clijsters and if mauresmo beats sharapova?? |
Once again I'm not sure, but I think if davenpotrport beat clijsters and mauresmo beat clijsters, its the same. Clijsters is #2, thats all that matters.
|
leftys_rock
|
ok....thanx for telling me all that...now i understand the point system better....
|
wickedspin
|
Federer will be number #1 for a few years now so..you know ..lol
The WTA is a different story.
Clijsters- Will only be #1 if she keeps her head straight. If she dosen't choke and tries to stays healthy she could win 2 slams next year. However her perfomace at the Sony Ericcson Championships was less than impressive. Probaly beacause she had to play two plays that were just in the zone at that point. Not really her fault.
Venus- She never really followed up on Wimbledon which was kind of disapointing but she still can stay consistent in 2006 she will, no dount be number #1.
Sharapova- ... well she was number #1 last year so, if she stays consistent she might get that ranking back.
Davenport- She is #1 so she just needs to win Grand Slams and other big tournaments to keep that ranking.
|
x.doublea
|
ATP: It is most probable that Federer is ranked number 1 again, but he will really see challenge from Nadal. The first half of the season is played on slower surfaces, and Nadal (and other players such as Nalbandian and Berdych) might cause Federer to lose points. And in the second half of the season, which is played on faster surfaces, watch Federer be threatened by the likes of the improved James Blake and possibly Agassi.
However, its safe to bet that Federer will be number one again.
WTA: I think that if Henin-Hardenne regains her health, she and Clijsters will have a much closer rivalry for the number one position. Clijsters is finally realizing her potential, and Henin-Hardenne knows what is necessary for her to recapture the World Number One ranking. Sharapova will have to wait another one-two years before she's mature enough to battle for Number One well.
...
It will be nice for Agassi and Davenport to win one Grand Slam each.
|
J-man
|
| wickedspin wrote: | Federer will be number #1 for a few years now so..you know ..lol
The WTA is a different story.
Clijsters- Will only be #1 if she keeps her head straight. If she dosen't choke and tries to stays healthy she could win 2 slams next year. However her perfomace at the Sony Ericcson Championships was less than impressive. Probaly beacause she had to play two plays that were just in the zone at that point. Not really her fault.
Venus- She never really followed up on Wimbledon which was kind of disapointing but she still can stay consistent in 2006 she will, no dount be number #1.
Sharapova- ... well she was number #1 last year so, if she stays consistent she might get that ranking back.
Davenport- She is #1 so she just needs to win Grand Slams and other big tournaments to keep that ranking. |
yeah wickedspin i agree with you. but to add to sharapova, she needs to get some more experince it think before she can be #1. like we've seen when vetran players step up their game, sharapova struggles. i think by the age 20 (or twenties) she will be able to really hold that #1 postion.
|
leftys_rock
|
yup shes got a lot to improve now....she'll still be a pretty big factor at wimby tho.....she should make at least the SF there....she could possibly win it again, but shes got to improve her technique....
|
x.doublea
|
Sharapova has to mature and learn not to hit her hardest on every shot.
|
J-man
|
| x.doublea wrote: | | Sharapova has to mature and learn not to hit her hardest on every shot. |
or grunt so loud. i think sharapova also needs to learn some touch, and not only power (which she uses pretty good)
|
wickedspin
|
Well, Sharapova has hit some prett good drop shots and when I watch her I see that she is trying to add the shot to her resume. I agree that she needs to not blast every ball she gets but I guess she feels agaisnt the big hitters (Davenport, Venus, Serena) that she needs to over power them. Her grunting is annoying, yes, but many players grunt loudly (anybody ever hear of Venus Williams?).
To me this whole thing about Sharapova needed to mature is a bunch of bull. At 18 your body stops growing (so I've heard) so she has to by now grown into her body. Whenever she plays she plays, in my opinion, she plays with great maturity for her age (despite the fact that her shot selection can be bad sometimes).
To generalize this whole buch of stuff that I wrote I think what I am trying to say is Sharapova has been number one and can be number one again. However, the competion at this momemt with Venus ressurecting, Lindsay staying consitent, Mauresmo taking the initiative to win big tournaments, Pierce coming back, Clijsters dominating it would be hard for her to win. And saying that she isn't "mature" enough to get back to number one is, to me, a sorry excuse and discredits the accomplishments of thoose who have beaten her (sometimes badly) this year.
|
J-man
|
| wickedspin wrote: | Well, Sharapova has hit some prett good drop shots and when I watch her I see that she is trying to add the shot to her resume. I agree that she needs to not blast every ball she gets but I guess she feels agaisnt the big hitters (Davenport, Venus, Serena) that she needs to over power them. Her grunting is annoying, yes, but many players grunt loudly (anybody ever hear of Venus Williams?).
To me this whole thing about Sharapova needed to mature is a bunch of bull. At 18 your body stops growing (so I've heard) so she has to by now grown into her body. Whenever she plays she plays, in my opinion, she plays with great maturity for her age (despite the fact that her shot selection can be bad sometimes).
To generalize this whole buch of stuff that I wrote I think what I am trying to say is Sharapova has been number one and can be number one again. However, the competion at this momemt with Venus ressurecting, Lindsay staying consitent, Mauresmo taking the initiative to win big tournaments, Pierce coming back, Clijsters ting it would be hard for her to win. And saying that she isn't "mature" enough to get back to number one is, to me, a sorry excuse and discredits the accomplishments of thoose who have beaten her (sometimes badly) this year. |
i understand where you are coming from wickedspin, about the "mature" thing. but i really think that's one of the reasons for some big losses (mentally and physically). but i give credit to the players that have beaten her. it's a major accomplishment.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah that was the word that i was looking for "touch".....she really has to add touch to her shots....yeah there really hard and everything, but just hitting hard wont get her anywhere.....and about the grunting thing(or shrieking)....grunting actually makes u hit harder...i tried it....it also knocks the opponent off a litle....that was a really bad double bagel loss to davenport earlier last year.....but davenport played really good in that one....agassi pulled out of AO by the way....
|
Agassi2000
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | yeah that was the word that i was looking for "touch".....she really has to add touch to her shots....yeah there really hard and everything, but just hitting hard wont get her anywhere.....and about the grunting thing(or shrieking)....grunting actually makes u hit harder...i tried it....it also knocks the opponent off a litle....that was a really bad double bagel loss to davenport earlier last year.....but davenport played really good in that one....agassi pulled out of AO by the way.... |
I think sharapova has no touch at all. She sure can blast the ball, but touch is not a word I would use to describe her tennis playing.
|
leftys_rock
|
she doesnt have touch now....she has to add it to her game later....or she is gonna get nowhere with her game....she just surprised davenport and williams in 04 wimbledon....but she really doesnt have any spins in her game....
|
dav6789
|
Yeah, people are now used to her game and style of play.
|
fererrodf
|
Sharapova has no touch at all. She plays with hardly any spin will commit more unforced errors. She has the game to win tournaments anf slams but i just don't see her winning tournamnets after tournaments because the players are used to her style and able to formulate a winning game.
Respect her for what she does for glamourising WTA but i don't fancy her game as opposed to someone say- Kim, Justin, Davenport, Hingis.
|
leftys_rock
|
i like the way JHH plays when shes on....but she just wasnt on for the last half of the season....cuz ive been trying to do her backhand...the one handed topper.....my arm is still getting used to it....but JHH has very good touch...
|
J-man
|
there's really only a hand full of players in the WTA who have any variety in their game
|
leftys_rock
|
would anybody say that davenport has variety in her game, because hers is also hard hitting, but it is extremely clean and she has a game plan...
|
J-man
|
well what you described in my opinon isn't really variety.
|
leftys_rock
|
so would u say that schnyder has variety in her game?? she has a lot of spins and loops and changes things up...
|
Babzzzzz
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | so would u say that schnyder has variety in her game?? she has a lot of spins and loops and changes things up... |
Yeah, Schnyder has variety in her game and a beautiful backhand (single handed).
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah, she is pretty smart with her serve too....cuz her first is flat like everybodys, but her second is slower, but theres a lot of lefty spin on it...
|
Babzzzzz
|
Overall, Schnyder is smart player and I think it's because she posesses so much variety so she can throw in every possible shot she wants.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah its just that she isnt powerful enough to really knock over top players.....
|
Babzzzzz
|
And she is not that consistent.
|
x.doublea
|
I agree. Schnyder's style is awkward and can mess up most of the tour's rhythm. However, the top ranked players are just too powerful for her to handle consistantly.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah the spins help a lot, but its just not enough to get past top players...if she was right handed, she wouldn't really get anywhere....
|
J-man
|
| Babzzzzz wrote: | | Overall, Schnyder is smart player and I think it's because she posesses so much variety so she can throw in every possible shot she wants. |
yes exactly. that's why she's dangerous
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, but if her opponent is having an on day, shes gone.....
|
J-man
|
that goes for like everyone
|
beachjm
|
I think there must be something in the water in Switzerland. Look at Federer, Hingis, Schynder-all talented, versatile players. They all can beat you in a variety of ways and are very enjoyable to watch. You could say the same thing about a lot of the French players.
I remember reading that one coach (I believe it was Brad Stine-he used to coach Courier and a lot of other good one's) said that the best place to learn the game as a kid was in France because they teach a very versatile, all-around style of play and let you play as an individualist.
It seems here that guys like Bolletterri are so overrated and just teach big serve, big forehand etc. That's why so many of our players suck on clay! Its also why the Europeans are for the most part dominating the sport. I wish some of the coaches here would instruct more on the overall game and not just bashing the ball back and forth. It's boring to watch, not really that effective, and seems to lead to more injuries. I would think that Federer is the ultimate model of how to instruct a young player. I mean you need the chops to be as successful as he is, but he sure had a great coach as a kid that helped him with his superb fundamentals!
|
leftys_rock
|
he'll probably be a good coach when hes retired....
|
J-man
|
| beachjm wrote: | I think there must be something in the water in Switzerland. Look at Federer, Hingis, Schynder-all talented, versatile players. They all can beat you in a variety of ways and are very enjoyable to watch. You could say the same thing about a lot of the French players.
I remember reading that one coach (I believe it was Brad Stine-he used to coach Courier and a lot of other good one's) said that the best place to learn the game as a kid was in France because they teach a very versatile, all-around style of play and let you play as an individualist.
It seems here that guys like Bolletterri are so ove and just teach big serve, big forehand etc. That's why so many of our players suck on clay! Its also why the Europeans are for the most part ting the sport. I wish some of the coaches here would instruct more on the overall game and not just bashing the ball back and forth. It's boring to watch, not really that effective, and seems to lead to more injuries. I would think that Federer is the ultimate of how to instruct a young player. I mean you need the chops to be as successful as he is, but he sure had a great coach as a kid that helped him with his superb fundamentals! |
i never really liked bollteri's. i went for campo they didn't teach me anything. van der meer is better. i mainly agree with you. not enough coaches here in america teach variety and stuff. then kids see alot of players bashing the ball from thr baseline and they do that. if you add alittle variety you could upset more opponents and help your game
|
leftys_rock
|
yes not many people make decent lobs these days...
|
fererrodf
|
I was brought up playing aggressive tennis by bashing the balls left-right, opening the court with angles and more acute angles - some sort similar to Agassi and Seles. Concentrate on the return of serve, volley only when necessary. I was drilled in that way.
Now that my competitive days are more or less over, I'm concentrating developing the juniors using more variety like slice, approaching the net- basically a more all-round player.
However, you still need to at the individual's strength and access the kind of game the player is most suited for. Not everyone will succeed having more variety in their repetoire. Some juniors are just meant to play a power game, but I still emphasize the need to finish the points quicker by ending it off at the net.
But I'm all for all-round game when I introduce and coach my elite juniors.
|
J-man
|
| fererrodf wrote: | I was brought up playing aggressive tennis by bashing the balls left-right, opening the court with angles and more acute angles - some sort similar to Agassi and Seles. Concentrate on the return of serve, volley only when necessary. I was drilled in that way.
Now that my competitive days are more or less over, I'm concentrating developing the juniors using more variety like slice, approaching the net- basically a more all-round player.
However, you still need to at the individual's strength and access the kind of game the player is most suited for. Not everyone will succeed having more variety in their repetoire. Some juniors are just meant to play a power game, but I still emphasize the need to finish the points quicker by ending it off at the net.
But I'm all for all-round game when I introduce and coach my elite juniors. |
true. not everyone will have great sucess with variety. but i still think if those bashers acually tried, they would do better.
|
leftys_rock
|
thats true....cuz theyve got to realize at some point that bashing doesnt always win matches....
|
x.doublea
|
Those players could use variety once in a while to give their opponents a different look, and possibly 'stun' them. For example, Agassi's drop shot is not really the best-executed, but it's so effective because he places his drop shots at the right time. He will get his opponents on the run and he will suddenly throw a drop shot at the least expected time. Agassi's latest incorperation of the drop shot and his increase variety in terms of spins and the serve have helped him make life on the court a little easier for him (and just as successful).
|
leftys_rock
|
yes....i remember when fed used a dropshot in the last set against agassi, and the commentator said that it wasnt necessary.....cuz fed would have won in 6 more points anyway....
|
x.doublea
|
Yes, McEnroe said something like: "We all know that you are the best ever, but you don't have to be that mean."
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah i remember that....a drop shot is kind of mean, but thats tennis
|
x.doublea
|
Whatever works....Federer did the right thing; perhaps he was afraid that Agassi might somehow find a way back into the match, but I'm sure he knew he won the tournament after that 7-1 tiebreak.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah, winners just kept coming and coming off of feds racquet after the tiebreaker....
|
x.doublea
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | yeah, winners just kept coming and coming off of feds racquet after the tiebreaker.... |
Yes. Agassi has a problem he hasn't fixed in his entire career: whenever he's down, instead of slowing things down and trying to claw back properly into the match, he begins to rush the pace of the match, trying to hit right at the lines. He's lost quite a few matches due to this.
|
leftys_rock
|
true....he was probably really tired in the USO final....cuz later he realized that it was impossible for him to win the match....
|
x.doublea
|
Someday, the USTA will have to abolish the back-to-back Super Sadurdy and Final Sunday. The game is just so rough right now, and it's just too tough for the men to play to best-of-five set matches in to days. Imagine how unfair it would be if one of the finalists got a walkover into the final.
|
leftys_rock
|
yes thats true....and its just too bad if it gets rained out on saturday....
|
x.doublea
|
For some reason, the weather always holds up for the weekend during the US Open. I'm not sure why....
|
leftys_rock
|
at wimbledon, there is always at least one day which it rains....
|
x.doublea
|
Yes. In 2004, the rain got so atrocious that they had to schedual matches on the first Sunday.
|
dav6789
|
Yeah, in 2005 it didnt rain for the 1st week, but it eventually rained.
It was raining during Wimbledon, but we hardly had any rain before or after the tournament.
|
leftys_rock
|
oh....thats a little wierd....it usually doesnt rain during the USO except for quick showers.....
|
|
|
